Question regarding naming conventions...

heymarky · Post by **heymarky** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 3:30 am

Would a 'natural son' be named according to the usual naming conventions?

I have a James Dyet (sometimes Dyer) and Marion Logan.

From IGI and SP I have found these children and marriage records:

16 Mar 1800 - Henry christened. (b: 7 Nov 1799), Kilwinning, Ayr
05 Dec 1800 - James Dyer and Marion Logan Married, Kilwinning, Ayr
04 Mar 1804 - David christened (b: 26 Feb 1804) Kilwinning, Ayr
about 1805 - James born, Kilwinning, Ayr (from census & death records)
29 Jun 1806 - Robert born & baptized, Girvan, Ayr (my ggg-grandfather)
07 Aug 1808 - George born, Girvan, Ayr
06 Jun 1811 - William born, Barony, Lanark (7th child)
24 Oct 1813 - Marrion born, Barony, Lanark (8th child)
09 Dec 1815 - John born, Barony, Lanark (9th child)
04 Nov 1818 - Andrew born Glasgow, Lanark
05 Oct 1820 - Sarah born Glasgow, Lanark

There is a birth record for a Marrian Logan born 9 Apr 1780, child of David Logan and Sarah Service that I assume is the above Mrs. Dyer/Dyet.

Assuming that David is named for David Logan and James is named for his father, is it reasonably safe to assume that James' fathers name was probably Henry? or would a 'natural child' not be named after a grandparent? or have I got the whole thing wrong?

Do the girls Marrion and Sarah (and possibly one missing) fit 'the' pattern.

For what it is worth, there is a James Dyet born to Robert Dyet and Marrion Marchell in Killwining, 01 Jan 1772.

Any help, information, opinions or free advice would be greatly welcome.

- Mark

Post by **emanday** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 3:42 am

Gosh Mark,

You've got me wondering about that as well now

I would suppose it varied a lot, depending on the attitudes of the father, and both sets of grandparents.

I've got one illegitimate male rellie who was named after his mother's father and the natural father wasn't named on the BC, but another one whose father was named on the BC and was given HIS father's name.

Now I'm going to be rummaging through my records trying to find what was most common

Post by **joette** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 12:16 pm

In my family especially with the eldest sons the Mothers seem to have taken the chance to name their boys for their Fathers.
I have one who names her eldest son James but she is married to his Father,she is then widowed & has another child who she names for her Father she then re- marries & their next child is named for his paternal Grandfather-Alexander
The other where the Father's name is on the birth certificate names her son after her Father another Alexander.
Where they don't subsuquently marry the boys are named for their Fathers-maybe they knew they wouldn't do the "decent thing" & the girls almost to a one are named for their own Mothers.
My Granny broke the mould by naming her son after her Aunt's husband.

gmg · Post by **gmg** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 12:27 pm

Imteresting debate.

I read somewhere that the protocol in earlier generations was often - 1st son named after father's father, 2nd son after mother's father. 1st daughter after mother's mum 2nd after father's mum then after parents.

I must admit I found quite a lot of my ancestors by following this idea - using christian name links. It, of course, won't be so easy for future researchers as few people name their children after parents these days.

Post by **paddyscar** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 4:15 pm

Hi HeyMarky:

You may find our FAQ on the naming patterns of help: http://talkingscot.com/forum/viewtopic. ... ng+pattern

Also, this one on middle names:

http://talkingscot.com/forum/viewtopic. ... ng+pattern

Frances

Russell · Post by **Russell** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 4:31 pm

Hi Mark

I think you have asked a question for which there is no 'usual' answer.

If a couple stayed together and had further children then perhaps they would follow the naming pattern.
If they subsequently married then this legitimised the child and a note to this effect could be made (See RCE entries) but this was not often done as it cost hard earned cash to make application.
If a 'natural father' had his arm twisted by the Kirk Session to acknowledge paternity for financial support purposes but had nothing further to do with the child, it would be unusual for the child to be named in a way which would follow the paternal line.
Sometimes, if paternity was NOT acknowledged, the mother would name the child giving it a middle name which pointed the finger at the culprit (using his surname).

Russell

gmg · Post by **gmg** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 5:32 pm

On a similar thread - I have been puzzling with this one for some time.

Could a mother register a man as the father of her child and give the child his surname without being married to him and without his knowledge?

Post by **AndrewP** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 5:37 pm

gmg wrote:Could a mother register a man as the father of her child and give the child his surname without being married to him and without his knowledge?

No. If a father, not married to the child's mother, was to be named on the child's birth certificate, he had to go to the registrar's office and sign his name on that certificate.

If that was not done and the child's mother wanted the father named then she had to go to court and raise a paternity action.

All the best,

AndrewP

gmg · Post by **gmg** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 9:10 pm

Well! The plot thickens!

I have an ancestor who's 'parents' never married. In the OPR record of her birth it is recorded thus 'xx & yy in z had an illegal daughter'.

The daughter took the fathers surname until she married. On her MC her parents are listed as xx (reputed father) and yy (deceased).

So - how did her mother manage to register her in her father's name? This was in 1850 before SR's and I'm sure the father's family wouldn't have agreed to him acknowledging paternity.

How could I find out if she went to court in 1850?

LesleyB · Post by **LesleyB** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 9:14 pm

Hi gmg

Could a mother register a man as the father of her child and give the child his surname without being married to him and without his knowledge?

Andrew is quite correct that this would not be the case post 1855. However, it seems the birth you are referring to, from the wording and date you have given is an OPR entry. Now we know this, that puts it into a different category altogether!

You would really need to check the Kirk Session records for the area to try to establish what the actual circumstances were. It could well be that the father had already admitted paternity. Neither the mother or father would have appeared in court as far as I'm aware, as it was not a civil matter in Scotland pre-1855 but was dealt with by the Kirk Session or the Presbytery in more serious cases. Both would, however, have been called to appear before the Kirk Session to answer for their actions.

It is quite normal to see "reputed father" or "putative father" on a later marriage entry in this kind of case.

Best wishes
Lesley